I thought the larger point was that they’re using plenty of sources that do not lie in the public domain. Like if I download a textbook to read for a class instead of buying it - I could be proscecuted for stealing. And they’ve downloaded and read millions of books without paying for them.
Like if I download a textbook to read for a class instead of buying it - I could be proscecuted for stealing
Ehh, no almost certainly not (But it does depend on your local laws). But that honestly just sounds like some corporate boogyman to prevent you from pirating their books. The person hosting the download, if they did not have the rights to publicize it freely, would possibly be prosecuted though.
For physical goods there is ‘theft by proxy’ though (receiving stolen goods that you know are most likely stolen), but that quite certainly doesn’t apply to digital, copyable goods. As to even access any kind of information on the internet, you have to download and thus, copy it.
you can also use basically anything that’s not / in a file name as well, it’s pretty based. Meanwhile on windows you have to use SMB mappings if you don’t want your directory structure to self immolate, what a good operating system.
i’m not sure if you’re allowed to escape the / character, i feel like it’s blatantly illegal. But you could use the funny character set trolling thing instead, where you use a not forward slash instead. (not the )
Just tried. It processes the escape first and then finds the path with it. Essentially, making it look into a directory made by the characters before the /.
In the first one, the backslash is not the escape character, but part of the text.
Turns out Dolphin just replaces the forward slash with U+2044 “Fraction Slash” character, hence, not requiring any escape. I’d call that cheating, but it works well.
Turns out Dolphin just replaces the forward slash with U+2044 “Fraction Slash” character, hence, not requiring any escape. I’d call that cheating, but it works well.
called it, i knew someone would use illegal characters eventually.
I would have a problem if a terminal app were to do something like this, but for GUI apps, it is expected for them to make stuff easier.
And I feel like, if you were to use a slash in a file name, it would most probably be either an “or” slash or a fraction slash, so the substitution is fine in my books.
illegal characters
Not sure about calling it that, considering it is a standard UTF-8 character. (0x2044 in UTF-16)
I would have a problem if a terminal app were to do something like this, but for GUI apps, it is expected for them to make stuff easier. And I feel like, if you were to use a slash in a file name, it would most probably be either an “or” slash or a fraction slash, so the substitution is fine in my books.
it’s close enough, i generally consider an “illegal” character a non typable character. Especially these alt characters that are visually hard to distinguish from others such as the forward slash for example, i believe this was the same character used for a handful of somewhat clever phishing scams.
I recently renamed a few movie files to something with ‘:’. That worked fine on Linux, but lead to some issues on windows. With a lot of errors from next cloud for file sync and me not being able to rename them without booting back to Linux. Fun stuff
if you’re using samba file sharing across OS’s (like you should) you should use something called catia:mappings in order to solve that problem. It means shit like colon will be mapped to a different character, but there are some sane mappings out there that you can use.
I think it's kind of like an email, weather or text app syncing across devices, only here communities. Please don't be sorry for the question. Come to Kbin.earth
So what would I have done that resulted in a permaban if I’ve never even heard of that instance? I have only ever posted here on Lemmy.world.
The user who posted it is trying to make some point that I am an obvious troll and says that I got perma banned for “toxic” behavior and then posted that screenshot. And I couldn’t really reply, because I had no idea what any of it meant! I asked him to post shots of any comments on that instance that would have resulted in a permaban, but he declined.
And thank you for the Kbin.earth invite! I have heard others mention it as well, so I will definitely look into it!
Since instances are federated, posts show up across instances that federate with yours. Please try not to worry about it. All of us project, to greater or lesser degrees.
Thank you. I was just curious because the guy is really laying into me and laughing about it, but other than his screenshot of an instance I have never heard of, he has no posts to show me that would have gotten me banned. lol
But hey, probably already spent too much time. I think he may have been behind the whole thing. He’s been following me on Lemmy a few days now. Thank you! You guy are awesome!
Thank you. Hurt people hurt people. And the wheel of samsara keeps turning. It is hard, but let us focus on giving ourselves, each other, and in due time, those who traumatize us the love we seek. We can do this. We will stumble. We will fall. We will get up and try again, and again and again. Bullying is ugly. Click on his user name and block him. It's sick and sad if mods are allowing this, rather than not noticing. You can complain, if you think it will matter. Just be prepared if may not.
The only thing I've seen toxic so far is how he's been treated. I'll tell you something though, I see his abusers being very personality disordered, and it couldn't hurt to self reflect. The loudest voices aren't correct, just loud and very badly behaved.
You may need to go back to when he showed up here, when people responded to the concept of third party candidates in general, not him or their assumptions about him specifically.
After a while he made a name for himself, and people started to respond to him differently after evaluating his many interactions.
Let’s compare, for example, to mozz, who probably has a fair amount of respect for his thoughtful and comprehensive replies. Or jeffw, who also seems to want to generate traffic but appears to be much more genuine about republishing political articles of general interest.
UniversalMonk has earned some of the negative response he’s getting.
Why would I have posts to prove a reason you got banned? I mean even besides technical hurdles with federation making that potentially difficult, why would I invest more time into this issue? Lol you got banned and the person who did it said you’re toxic, and I can agree. Not sure why you’re drawing more attention to it
Because as many in the tech thread said, it could be for nothing. There are no specific posts that show me even posting to that sub. So it’s not proof of anything other than some person in some instance (where there is no proof that I even posted) decide that they would ban me. And my post history also shows ZERO evidence that I ever posted there.
And really hard to take your seriously. Besides just being banned from World news for your comments. You’ve just had some comments here, that were directed towards me, removed for civility.
Reddit is like this too on the app. Some of the worst algorithm recommendations I’ve ever seen. “You like (your local city subreddit), you might also like (some city you don’t live in subreddit).” Why?
The worst is that is has ruined my porn account because it doesn’t recommend NSFW subs so I have to scrape past random unrelated garbage like the Pokémon card valuation subreddit and /r/cement, I counted and it went 40 posts between NSFW posts once. On my account that is exclusively subscribed to NSFW subs.
Ahh, ok. Thank you! I was figuring it couldn’t be too serious since i had never even knew about it until this random user starting posting screenshots of it and calling me toxic. lmao
While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.
No, the output in a word processor is explicitly created by the user, whereas the output created by a LLM is based on the training data OpenSI scraped and influenced by a user prompt
You need a very specific prompt to make a copy. Even to just be similar enough you have to put the proper input and try a lot of repetitions.
That’s why the right holders are going after the training which included copying by the AI corpos.
In your dream land right holders could just prompt the AI till it spit something close to their work and sue the AI corp for that. Repeat as needed ; infinite money glitch.
OS vendors aren’t selling¹ what users copy into the clipboard.
¹ Well, Microsoft probably is, especially with that recall bullshit, and I don’t trust Google and Apple not to do it either… but if any of them is doing it they should get fined into bankruptcy.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression, so we can have human culture and shit.
The idea of a “teensy” exception so that we can “advance” into a dark age of creative pointlessness and regurgitated slop, where humans doing the fun part has been made “unnecessary” by the unstoppable progress of “thinking” machines, would be hilarious, if it weren’t depressing as fuck.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression
...within a capitalistic framework.
Humans are creative creatures and will express themselves regardless of economic incentives. We don't have to transmute ideas into capital just because they have "value".
Can’t say you’re wrong, however the forseeable future is less than two centuries, and our failure to navigate our way out of capitalism towards something more mutualistic figures largely into our imminent doom.
That’s the reason we got copyright, but I don’t think that’s the only reason we could want copyright.
Two good reasons to want copyright:
Accurate attribution
Faithful reproduction
Accurate attribution:
Open source thrives on the notion that: if there’s a new problem to be solved, and it requires a new way of thinking to solve it, someone will start a project whose goal is not just to build new tools to solve the problem but also to attract other people who want to think about the problem together.
If anyone can take the codebase and pretend to be the original author, that will splinter the conversation and degrade the ability of everyone to find each other and collaborate.
In the past, this was pretty much impossible because you could check a search engine or social media to find the truth. But with enshittification and bots at every turn, that looks less and less guaranteed.
Faithful reproduction:
If I write a book and make some controversial claims, yet it still provokes a lot of interest, people might be inclined to publish slightly different versions to advance their own opinions.
Maybe a version where I seem to be making an abhorrent argument, in an effort to mitigate my influence. Maybe a version where I make an argument that the rogue publisher finds more palatable, to use my popularity to boost their own arguments.
This actually happened during the early days of publishing, by the way! It’s part of the reason we got copyright in the first place.
And again, it seems like this would be impossible to get away with now, buuut… I’m not so sure anymore.
—
Personally:
I favor piracy in the sense that I think everyone has a right to witness culture even if they can’t afford the price of admission.
And I favor remixing because the cultural conversation should be an active read-write two-way street, no just passive consumption.
But I also favor some form of licensing, because I think we have a duty to respect the integrity of the work and the voice of the creator.
I think AI training is very different from piracy. I’ve never downloaded a mega pack of songs and said to my friends “Listen to what I made!” I think anyone who compares OpenAI to pirates (favorably) is unwittingly helping the next set of feudal tech lords build a wall around the entirety of human creativity, and they won’t realize their mistake until the real toll booths open up.
I think AI training is very different from piracy. I’ve never downloaded a mega pack of songs and said to my friends “Listen to what I made!”
I’ve never done this. But I have taken lessons from people for instruments, listened to bands I like, and then created and played songs that certainly are influences by all of that. I’ve also taken a lot of art classes, and studied other people’s painting styles and then created things from what I’ve learned, and said “look at what I made!” Which is far more akin to what AI is doing that what you are implying here.
Because what they are describing is just straight up theft, while what I describes is so much closer to how one trains and ai. I’m afraid that what comes out of this ai hysteria is that copyright gets more strict and humans copying style even becomes illegal.
Well that all doesn’t matter much. If AI is used to cause harm, it should be regulated. If that frustrates you then go get the laws changed that allow shitty companies to ruin good ideas.
I never said anything about leaving ai unregulated. I never said anything about being frustrated. And its likely you asking for laws to be changed, not me.
I’m sympathetic to the reflexive impulse to defend OpenAI out of a fear that this whole thing results in even worse copyright law.
I, too, think copyright law is already smothering the cultural conversation and we’re potentially only a couple of legislative acts away from having “property of Disney” emblazoned on our eyeballs.
But don’t fall into their trap of seeing everything through the lens of copyright!
We have other laws!
We can attack OpenAI on antitrust, likeness rights, libel, privacy, and labor laws.
Being critical of OpenAI doesn’t have to mean siding with the big IP bosses. Don’t accept that framing.
Humans are indeed creative by nature, we like making things. What we don’t naturally do is publish, broadcast and preserve our work.
Society is iterative. What we build today, we build mostly out of what those who came before us built. We tell our versions of our forefathers’ stories, we build new and improved versions of our forefather’s machines.
A purely capitalistic society would have infinite copyright and patent durations, this idea is mine, it belongs to me, no one can ever have it, my family and only my family will profit from it forever. Nothing ever improves because improving on an old idea devalues the old idea, and the landed gentry can’t allow that.
A purely communist society immediately enters whatever anyone creates into the public domain. The guy who revolutionizes energy production making everyone’s lives better is paid the same as a janitor. So why go through all the effort? Just sweep the floors.
At least as designed, our idea of copyright is a compromise. If you have an idea, we will grant you a limited time to exclusively profit from your idea. You may allow others to also profit at your discretion; you can grant licenses, but that’s up to you. After the time is up, your idea enters the public domain, and becomes the property and heritage of humanity, just like the Epic of Gilgamesh. Others are free to reproduce and iterate upon your ideas.
I think you have your janitor example backwards. Spending my time revolutionizing energy productions sounds much more enjoyable than sweeping floors. Same with designing an effective floor sweeping robot.
I’d agree, but here’s one issue with that: we live in reality, not in a post-capitalist dreamworld.
Creativity takes up a lot of time from the individual, while a lot of us are already working two or even three jobs, all on top of art. A lot of us have to heavily compromise on a lot of things, or even give up our dreams because we don’t have the time for that. Sure, you get the occasional “legendary metal guitarist practiced so much he even went to the toilet with a guitar”, but many are so tired from their main job, they instead just give up.
Developing game while having a full-time job feels like crunching 24/7, while only around 4 is going towards that goal, which includes work done on my smartphone at my job. Others just outright give up. This shouldn’t be the normal for up and coming artists.
Honestly, that’s why open source AI is such a good thing for small creatives. Hate it or love it, anyone wielding AI with the intention to make new expression will be much more safe and efficient to succeed until they can grow big enough to hire a team with specialists. People often look at those at the top but ignore the things that can grow from the bottom and actually create more creative expression.
One issue is, many open source AI also tries to ape whatever the big ones are doing at the moment, with the most outrageous example is one that generates a timelapse for AI art.
There’s also tools that especially were created with artists in mind, but they’re less popular due to the average person cannot use it as easily as the prompter machines, nor promise the end of “people with fake jobs” (boomers like generative AI for this reason).
That's why we should look for good solutions to societal problems, and not fall back on bad "solutions" just because that's what we're used to. I'm not against the idea of copyright existing. But copyright as it exists today is stifling and counterproductive for most creative endeavors. We do live in reality, but I don't believe it is the only possible reality. We're not getting to Star Trek Space Communism™ anytime soon and honestly I like the idea of owning stuff. That doesn't mean that there aren't concrete steps we can and should take right now in the present reality to make things better. And for that to happen we need to get our priorities and philosophies straight. Philosophies which for me include a robust public commons, the inability to own ideas outright, and the ability to take and transform art and culture. Otherwise, we're just falling into the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" mindset but for art and culture.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression, so we can have human culture and shit.
I feel like that purpose has already been undermined by various changes to copyright law since its inception, such as DMCA and lengthening copyright term from 14 years to 95. Freedom to remix existing works is an important part of creative expression which current law stifles for any original work that releases in one person’s lifespan. (Even Disney knew this: the animated Pinocchio movie wouldn’t exist if copyright could last more than 56 years then)
Either way, giving bots the ‘right’ to remix things that were just made less than a year ago while depriving humans the right to release anything too similar to a 94 year old work seems ridiculous on both ends.
lemmy.world
Oldest